| Literature DB >> 27052470 |
Hao Lun Luo1,2, Ming Tse Sung3, Eing Mei Tsai1,4,5, Chang Shen Lin1,6, Nai Lun Lee2, Yueh-Hua Chung2,7, Po Hui Chiang2.
Abstract
Upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma (UT-UC) is rare and treatment options or prognostic markers are limited. There is increasing evidence indicating that urothelial carcinoma may be an endocrine-related cancer. The aim of this study was to analyze the prognostic effect of estrogen receptor beta (ERβ) on the outcome of UT-UC. From 2005 to 2012, this study included 105 patients with pT3 UT-UC. Perioperative factors, pathological features, and ERβ immunostaining were reviewed and prognostic effects were examined by multivariate analysis. This study divided patients into either the ERβ-high (n = 52) or ERβ-low (n = 53) group and analyzed their oncologic outcomes. All pathological features except infiltrating tumor architecture (significantly higher incidence in ERβ-low group, p = 0.004) are symmetric in both groups. Low ERβ expression was significantly correlated with local recurrence and distant metastasis in univariate analysis (p = 0.035 and 0.004, respectively) and multivariate analysis (p = 0.05 and 0.008, respectively). Cell line study also proved that knock down of ERβ cause less UTUC proliferation and migration. In addition, ERβ agonist also enhanced the cytotoxic and migration inhibition effect of cisplatin and ERβ antagonist cause the UTUC cell more resistant to cisplatin. This result may help identify patients in need of adjuvant therapy or develop potential targeted therapy.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27052470 PMCID: PMC4823660 DOI: 10.1038/srep24263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(a) 40X microscopic view of high ERβ expression specimen. (b) 100X microscopic view of high ERβ expression specimen.
Patient characteristics.
| ER β (−) | ER β (+) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | 53 | 52 | |
| Follow duration | 39.5 ± 34.3 | 34.6 ± 23.9 | 0.404 |
| Age | 68.6 ± 10.8 | 68.6 ± 10.0 | 0.975 |
| Smoking | 7(13.2%) | 7(13.5%) | 0.969 |
| Bladder cancer history | 3(5.7%) | 8(15.4%) | 0.119 |
| Infiltrating tumor | 22(41.5%) | 9(17.3%) | 0.004 |
| LN positive | 2(3.8%) | 4(7.7%) | 0.414 |
| LVI | 27(50.9%) | 20(38.5%) | 0.144 |
| CIS | 16(30.2%) | 20(38.5%) | 0.452 |
| SCC diff. | 19(35.8%) | 18(34.6%) | 0.782 |
| TN | 17(32.1%) | 27(51.9%) | 0.060 |
| Multifocal tumor | 9(17.0%) | 9(17.3%) | 0.965 |
| High grade | 52(98.1%) | 52(100%) | 0.320 |
| Bladder recurrence | 9(17.0%) | 11(21.2%) | 0.653 |
| Local recurrence | 24(45.3%) | 14(26.9%) | 0.035 |
| Distant metastasis | 26(49.1%) | 12(23.1%) | 0.004 |
| Cancer specific mortality | 17(32.1%) | 6(11.5%) | 0.008 |
Abbreviation: TN = Tumor necrosis, CIS = Carcinoma in situ, LVI = Lymphovascular invasion, SCC diff = Squamous differentiation, LN = Lymph node.
Figure 2(a) ERβ effect on local recurrence free survival for pT3 UT-UC. (b) ERβ effect on distant metastasis free survival for pT3 UT-UC.
Multivariate analysis for prognostic factors about T3 UT-UC recurrence.
| Local recurrence | Distant metastasis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate p value | Multivariate p value | Univariate p value | Multivariate p value | |
| ER β Low vs High | 0.035 | 0.05 HR = 2.6, 95%CI = 1.0~6.9 | 0.004 | 0.008 HR = 4.8, 95%CI = 1.5~15.4 |
| Tumor type Infiltrating vs papillary | 0.033 | 0.05 HR = 2.6, 95%CI = 1.0~7.9 | 0.092 | |
| Nodal status Positive vs Negative | 0.468 | 0.013 | 0.998 | |
| Lymphovascular invasion Present vs Absent | 0.103 | 0.014 | 0.064 | |
| Carcinoma | 0.399 | 0.399 | ||
| SCC differentiation Present vs Absent | 0.554 | 0.868 | ||
| Tumor necrosis Present vs Absent | 0.975 | 0.975 | ||
| Tumor multifocality Multiple vs Solitary | 0.782 | 0.415 | ||
| Tumor grade High vs Low | 0.182 | 0.449 | ||
| Gender Female vs Male | 0.184 | 0.082 | ||
| Age > 70 vs <=70 | 0.301 | 0.531 | ||
| Smoking Yes vs No | 0.524 | 0.080 | ||
| Previous bladder cancer Yes vs No | 0.189 | 0.008 | 0.997 | |
Figure 3Wound healing assay revealed ERβ knock down UTUC cells were more proliferative in 24 hours observation.
Figure 4Migration assay revealed ERβ knock down UTUC cells were tend to more aggressive.
Figure 5(a) The microscopic view for migration assessment of UTUC cell line by different combination of cisplatin, PHTPP, and DPN. (b) Cisplatin can cause less migration of UTUC cells. PHTPP causes UTUC cells more resistant to cisplatin treatment and DPN enhances the cisplatin effect.